EU : JEREMY HUNT'S REFERENDUM PLAN.

I tell you what, let's have another Referendum so that we can have another go at getting the 'Right Result' !

Jeremy Hunt, one of the most enthusiastic Europhiles in the government, is apparently considering putting himself forward for the leadership of the Conservative Party. One of his key ideas is that, once the terms of an 'Exit' deal have been negotiated, there should be another Referendum to ask the people if they agree with those terms. He has also said that he accepts the outcome of last weeks plebiscite and isn't suggesting that we have a second go at the basic question of membership but he also doesn't say what we should do if the people were to reject the negotiated exit terms.

Clearly, Mr Hunt's thinking is either muddled or his words are typically disingenuous. If the people were to reject whatever exit terms are agreed with the remaining EU countries, that would be a tacit vote for a second Referendum on the question of membership; indeed, it could even be interpreted as a vote for membership to be resumed. Also, given that this lunacy would probably only come to pass if a 'Remainer' was to win the Conservative leadership contest, the terms of the negotiation would undoubtedly be doctored so as to favour that outcome.

Jeremy Hunt has been making a right pig's breakfast of the NHS and now he wants us to trust him on the EU. Ha, Ha, Ha !!

EU REFERENDUM : IT'S 'BREXIT' !!

The Referendum is over, now the real struggle begins.

Last night's events were astonishing and momentous as millions of ordinary people finally made their voices heard. Europe has been shaken to its core as voters gave the '2-fingered salute' to both the UK government and its counterparts in the European Union. European politicians and bureaucrats are stunned and horrified but it's no more than they deserve after months and years of unaccountable diktats and appalling complacency; for years they have ignored their people and their arrogance has now come back to bite them very hard indeed. Anti-EU factions in other European countries are now demanding their own referendums, particularly in France, Italy and the Netherlands as the much-feared 'contagion' takes hold.

Financial markets had made an early judgement that voters would opt for the status quo and, possibly reluctantly, vote for 'Remain'. The UK stock market had experienced several days of steady rises and the pound soared to levels not seen since late last year; so much for experts. Once it became clear that 'Remain' was in trouble the pound began to fall, precipitately at times, and the FTSE 100 stock market index dropped by over 500 points, or 8%, at it's opening. BUT both have shown some resilience already, the FTSE 100 regaining ground to stand higher than it was a week ago, and the pound also recovering to only a little below the levels of recent weeks. In contrast, foreign markets, particularly in the EU, have fallen harder and further, indicating where the real problems are. BREXIT is more of a problem for the other EU nations and to suggest that these countries will risk their own economies by being difficult over the matter of the UK's exit is ludicrous.

On the back of the result, David Cameron has announced that he will resign once a new Conservative Party leader has been elected, but he's done this in a way which is indicative of the arrogance of modern political leaders. Standing at a lectern in Downing Street, in Presidential style and accompanied by his wife, Cameron made his announcement; why on earth was his wife there ? This is not the USA and Cameron is not a President with a 'First Family' around him, but the way in which he and some of his recent predecessors have acted has created that illusion. How the mighty are fallen.

The UK government will now have to consider exactly how it proceeds. Legally, nothing has yet changed and nothing will change until the EU is served an appropriate 'Article 50' notice; this could happen within days but it will more likely be months. Once this is done, renegotiation will begin and the shape of the future  will begin to unfold. Who will lead this process is yet to be decided, there will undoubtedly be a new leader of the Conservative Party and a new Prime Minister; there could be an early General Election, and Jeremy Corbyn's position as leader of the Labour Party could be threatened.

The nest few weeks, months and even years may well be uncertain and rocky but, ultimately, the UK will be in control of its own destiny. Bring it on !

EU REFERENDUM : IT'S VOTES THAT COUNT NOW.

Thank heavens it's all over bar the actual casting and counting of votes !

After months of campaigning, the EU Referendum has reached its climax and the polls open at 07:00 tomorrow. All of the abuse, half truths, lies, bravado, phoney statistics, threats, dire warnings, and general nastiness are over, at least for now. All that matters is where voters put that 'X' - in the box for 'Remain' or in the box for 'Leave'.

My 'X' will go where it was always going, emphatically in the box for 'Leave'. To me, there is one major issue and that is our sovereignty. As a member of the European Union, the UK is not, and never again will be, in charge of its own laws, economy, security, borders and destiny. All of the predictions about disaster if we leave carry no more weight than did the same dire warnings of catastrophe if we didn't join the ERM and, later, the EURO. We did join the ERM with disastrous results; we didn't join the EURO and are one of the very few member countries which has largely avoided the shocking consequences experienced by those who did. We didn't join the 'Schengen' area, an now many of the countries that did wish they hadn't.

We have one of the strongest economies in the world, the 5th largest; we have a significantly lower rate of unemployment than most member countries and our people are among the best provided for in the world. We are a wealthy and successful country which will have no difficulty in developing world-wide trade links, freed from the restrictive and protectionist policies of the European Union.

Do we want to be governed from Westminster or Brussels ? Do we want our masters to be people we elect or people who we don't know and never see ? Do we want to make our own rules or have rules imposed on us by committees meeting in secret far away ? Do we want to be able to react rapidly to changing needs and circumstances, or do we want to suffer the tortuously slow horse-trading procedures of the EU ?

A vote to 'Remain' is a vote for more of the same, showing no confidence in the UK. It is a vote for those who are scared of venturing out into the rest of the world, those who prefer the protectionist envelope of what they see as being the 'safe' option.

A vote for 'Leave' is a vote for change. It shows confidence in the UK. It is a vote for those who see opportunities galore in the world outside of protectionist Europe. It isn't without risk, but what is ? He who dares, wins !

VOTE LEAVE.

EU REFERENDUM : THE CONSEQUENCES ?

Should the people of the United Kingdom dare to vote to leave the European Union on Thursday, what might the consequences be ? Some, or all, of the following, perhaps.


The Queen and entire Royal Family move back to their ancient homeland of Hanover in Germany, declaring that they are Europeans even if the British people aren't.


Boris Johnson becomes Prime Minister. His first act is to invite Tony Blair to occupy the now vacant throne as King Tony the First. Blair refuses on the grounds that the job isn't big enough for him.


David Cameron announces that he was really in favour of 'Brexit' all along but was so scared of Mrs Merkel that he couldn't say so.


Prime Minister Johnson offers the throne to David Beckham. Beckham refuses, saying he already has a throne, why would he need another one ?


President Hollande announces that France will hold its own referendum next year to determine if the EU should remain a part of France.


Prime Minister Johnson offers the throne to Elton John. John accepts but insists that the public mustn't be told as he values his privacy, so will use the pseudonym of 'Reg Dwight'.


Chancellor Merkel declares that no more defections from the Union will be tolerated. She proposes a new law outlawing membership referendums.


Prince Philip says he never could stand the ruddy foreigners anyway, while chewing on his German sausage.


The pound collapses.


Prince Charles hugs some trees and announces that he never wanted to be King; he enters a Bavarian monastery.


George Osborne takes up a new career as a wallpaper hanger.


The stock market crashes.


Jeremy Corbyn refuses to sing the National Anthem at King Reg's private coronation; he declares his constituency of Islington North to be an independent Republic and names himself as its first President.


Scotland declares independence. The EU refuses to recognize it but demands a share of its off-shore oil and gas reserves.


Nigel Farage gets very, very drunk.


The stock market surges to double its previous highest level.


The pound doubles in value.


The Treasury, Bank of England, IMF, OECD, IFS and a host of 'respected economists' announce that they got things wrong; a speck of dust was mistaken for a decimal point and their forecasts were all much too gloomy.


US President-elect Clinton says the UK will be at the 'back of the queue' for trade talks.


Nigel Farage sobers up, realises what's happened and gets very, very drunk again.


England win the Euros, beating a combined France/Germany team 27-1 in the final.


US President-elect Trump says the UK will be 'first in the queue' for trade talks.


The European Union implodes. Chancellor Merkel flies secretly to Scotland in an attempt to start reconciliation talks. She is arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London.


King Reg composes a new national anthem, entitled "Voters in the Wind". Voters reject it in a referendum, King Reg abdicates in a huff. He is replaced by a cardboard cut-out, but no one notices.


David Cameron finds a new job on television, presenting "It'll be all right on the night, I hope".


The British people heave a huge sigh of relief that the whole damn referendum is over.


The EU insists that the referendum was misunderstood and produced the wrong result; it demands a re-run. The second result is 25% for 'In', 25% for 'Out' and 50% for 'Shake it all about'.


The British people heave another huge sigh of relief that the whole damn referendum is over.

JO COX, MP.

The murder of a Member of Parliament is a rare event, particularly as happened yesterday in Yorkshire. Indeed, other than murders in connection with declared Irish Nationalism, no sitting MP has been murdered since the assassination of Prime Minister Spencer Perceval in the lobby of the House of Commons in 1812.

The rarity of such an event serves only to add to the feelings of shock and horror. Jo Cox was a young woman who had only recently become an MP, and the full circumstances of her killing remain unclear; nonetheless, that she could have been shot and stabbed in broad daylight on a British street is frightening. Her constituency has lost a well respected representative and her family has suffered the loss of a daughter, wife and mother.

Amidst the outpouring of grief at this sad event, however, we must not lose sight of the fact that people are murdered almost every day and that the majority of these receive little attention. In the year to September 2015 there were actually 574 recorded murders in the England and Wales; few of these were even reported through national media, let alone afforded the lengthy coverage of yesterday's event, though they no doubt left families distraught and devastated.

Jo Cox's murder was shocking but it was not isolated. There have been suggestions that security arrangements for MPs may have to be reviewed and even that the way in which MPs relate to their constituents may need to be changed, but such moves would be a huge over-reaction. As public representatives, our MP's have to be easily accessible or our democracy, such as it is, is at risk. If MPs are to lock themselves away behind impenetrable layers of security, what about the rest of us ? How can the 500+ other murder victims every year protect themselves ?

There are lunatics out there and, sadly, we cannot always avoid their actions. Quite simply, life has risks.

EU REFERENDUM : THE MEDICINE ISN'T WORKING, SO TAKE MORE.

The longer the referendum campaign lasts, the more those leading the 'Remain' side appear like the purveyors of old style 'patent medicines'.

Cameron, Osborne, Corbyn, Darling, McDonnell et al, keep telling us that the medicine dispensed by the European Union in terms of its laws, rules and regulations is good for us and certainly much better than not taking the medicine at all; indeed, they go still further. For those of us who have taken the medicine for many years, but found it be ineffective or that it has made us feel worse, they tell us that the problem is that we haven't taken enough of it. They tell us that what we need is more and at a higher dose which, of course, incurs a higher cost.

The European Union is an anachronism. It was built on a fallacy and is now nothing but a self-serving edifice which has no purpose in the world of today. It is arbitrary, largely undemocratic and unaccountable; it's accounts are a mess and it is corrupt. It is restrictive and protectionist. It has destroyed the British fishing industry while supporting hugely inefficient farming practices; it interferes in our everyday lives for no acceptable reasons, with rules such as those which govern the labelling of the items in shops. It requires us to accept hundreds of thousands of migrants from all over Europe every year without permitting us to vet them in any way. The European Court of Justice, an organ of the EU, is superior to our own misnamed 'Supreme Court' and can, and does, overrule it. It's aim is to create a United States of Europe, a continental nation to rival the USA, Russia and China, and wants to have its own army. All of this and it is hugely expensive, too.

Do we really want to keep on taking the medicine ? VOTE LEAVE.

 

EU REFERENDUM : THERESA MAY SITS ON THE FENCE.

Before the Referendum campaign got under way, Theresa May was thought to be a likely 'Brexiteer', but, apparently, not now.

When push came to shove, Mrs May joined the 'In' campaign though it has to be said that she's not been hugely in evidence over the last few weeks. Yesterday, she gave an interview to the BBC in which she spoke about her careful weighing of the evidence and eventual decision to support 'Remain'. However, she also did a huge amount of 'fence-sitting' when it came to one of the central planks of the European Union, the free movement of people.

As Home Secretary, Mrs May knows all about immigration and has previously made fairly loud noises about the need to introduce greater controls, while failing miserably to do anything effective; it is, after all, her department that has responsibility for this area of government. What she now says, while arguing for 'Remain', is that she wants to see reform of the rules that govern the free movement of people and believes that this can be achieved as other countries want it too.

One wonders. There is no doubt that the people of some countries want to see curbs on free movement, but the people of many others certainly don't as they see much greater opportunities in the UK, France and Germany than they do at home. Critically, however, the project to create a United States of Europe can't, and won't, allow any genuine restrictions to be introduced. After all, people move freely between Yorkshire and Lancashire so, in the future single country of USE, people must be allowed to move freely between Hungary and Austria, France and Spain, Poland and Bulgaria and of course, the UK and anywhere.

Mrs May has been trying to tread a fine line, looking to her own political future which once looked very bright. Sadly for her, the last year or so has seen a serious downturn in her prospects and she clearly saw a chance to improve her position by joining what seemed to be the 'right' side; now she's trying to reposition herself yet again by moving more towards the standpoint of the 'Out' campaign on its major issue of immigration. Oh, Perfidious Albion !

VOTE LEAVE !

EU REFERENDUM : THE SKY WILL FALL IN, SAYS CHICKEN LICKEN.

Yawn !

Thank heaven the referendum is not far away now. Yesterday, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, teamed up with one of his Labour predecessors, Alistair Darling, to tell us more horror stories about what might happen in the event of the British people voting to leave the European Union. As usual from the 'Remain' campaign, it's a long list of frighteners.

According to these 2 economic giants, a 'Brexit' vote would mean an emergency Budget with the most terrible effects on us all. We'd have massive tax rises, huge cuts in public services, particularly the highly sensitive NHS, but also education and the police, and all be much worse off as our economy crumbles. These pseudo-predictions are, of course, based on the same negative assumptions as the forecasts issued by other Government directed bodies, pro-EU politicians and establishment organisations, and are every bit as debateable.

Former Chancellors of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson and Norman Lamont, plus former Conservative Party leaders Ian Duncan Smith and Michael Howard, have all condemned this invented picture of the future saying that it displayed "startling dishonesty" and was "born of desperation". Quite clearly, it is designed to frighten voters into doing what they're being told by those who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo, from which they benefit massively.

George Osborne and David Cameron have nailed their colours to the mast and know that their political futures are in the balance. Cameron has already said that he will not lead his party into another General Election, so his political future is already limited unless, of course, he expects to follow Tony Blair's example and become some sort of international political guru, paid insane amounts of money by organisations such as the European Union for doing very little. A vote for 'Brexit' would certainly upset this particular apple cart.

In Osborne's case, 12 months ago he had solid expectations of becoming the next leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister; today, this ambition has been blown apart and his only chance of any sort of future position in British politics is for there to be a vote to stay in the EU. Even then, he has so damaged his reputation within his party that there will be huge opposition to him and it could well be that, whichever way the vote goes, his position will, very quickly,prove to be untenable. Osborne's career in politics is surely over.

Amidst the lies and hypocrisy, one question remains supreme. Do we want to govern ourselves and make our own decisions, laws and rules, or do we want to let a load of faceless and largely anonymous people from across Europe do it for us ?

VOTE LEAVE !!

EU REFERENDUM : CORBYN & CO. TROT OUT THE SAME OLD TRIPE.

Today, the hierarchy of the Labour Party has come out in force and told its supporters that all hell will break loose if they don't vote to stay in the European Union. Apparently, a vote to leave the organisation will lead to workers being horribly mistreated as their 'rights' will all disappear, their jobs will be at risk, their wages will be cut and so on. Additionally, the NHS will find itself deprived of at least £10 billion and, quite probably, the sky will fall in. Evidence for all of this was, however, sadly lacking.

Following these pronouncements, Tom Watson, the Party's deputy leader, said that EU immigration rules would have to be reconsidered to make the case for revising the current free movement for workers. Why he thinks that the EU would do such a thing is a real conundrum; given that the ultimate aim of the EU is to create a 'United States of Europe', freedom of movement for all of its citizens is an immutable cornerstone of the project and there can be virtually no chance of it being changed in any meaningful way. This was clearly a sop to Labour 'Brexiteers', designed to try to convince them that the Party understood their concerns and would make changes when it next gains power, which may anyway be a long time in the future. With any luck, the targets of this con-trick will see right through it and ignore it.

As previously, these proponents of the 'Remain' campaign have nothing positive to say about the EU and tell us nothing of any potential future benefits of membership. All they do is tell us the same tired and manufactured stories about the frightening things that might happen should we actually dare to take our future in our own hands, and ignore those who are forever telling us that they 'know best'.

Take no notice of the scare stories. We are not children who are frightened of the dark, we are intelligent adults with minds of our own; we do not frighten as easily as some would like. Ignore them and VOTE LEAVE.

ORLANDO NIGHTCLUB MASSACRE : WILL THE USA EVER LEARN ?

The sad, sick society that thinks of itself as the Greatest Nation on Earth is again in the midst of a horror story. This time a lunatic claiming some sort of allegiance to Islamic terrorists has murdered 49 people in a Florida nightclub.

Whatever the killer's motivation and regardless of the fact that he had previously been investigated by the FBI, the one and only question that needs to be answered is "Why is it so easy to get a gun in the USA ?" This is yet another in a long, long line of similar rampages carried out by a variety of maniacs; some claim political or religious motives, others are simply insane, but all have found it supremely easy to get their hands on murderous weapons.

Despite the regularity of such incidents, it seems that the American people will not give up the right they have under the Second Amendment to their Constitution, a right which states:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

For decades, the so-called 'gun-lobby' has insisted that this amendment entitles every American citizen to wander the streets with any kind of firearm that they like; attempts to change it have met with fierce and overwhelming resistance. That the amendment was adopted as long ago as 1791, when the world was a very different place to what it is today, is considered irrelevant; that the gun owners have little if any involvement in a 'well regulated Militia' is ignored. Frankly, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

The result of this is events such as happened in Florida last night. The reaction of politicians is to condemn the act but look to make political capital out of it; the reaction of those who represent organisations such as the National Rifle Association is to blame the perpetrator while excusing themselves and the rest of the 'gun lobby' of any responsibility.

It is high time that this changed and the USA joined the 21st century, rather than continuing to live in the 19th century world of the 'Wild West'. There are no savage Indians out there, no marauding gangs of robbers or cattle rustlers; there are no 'frontier towns' where the fastest gun reigns supreme, and the Mexican army is not waiting just over the border. It may be news to many in the US but Wyatt Earp, Billy the Kid, Jesse James and all the rest are long gone, as are Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger, 'Pretty Boy' Floyd and 'Baby Face' Nelson. Today, there is no need for the average American to ever carry a gun indeed, the average American is probably in more danger from his gun-toting neighbours than he ever is from any true villain.

For God's sake, America, wake up to reality and put away your guns.

EU REFERENDUM : PENSIONS UNDER THREAT ?

Oh dear, oh dear. Cameron, Osborne and company really are getting desperate.

Today it's reported that David Cameron and his chum from Number 11, George Osborne, have said that they 'might' not be able to protect spending on pensions, the NHS and defence n the long term if the UK votes to leave the European Union. They claim that the strain on public finances caused by 'Brexit' would threaten the so-called 'triple lock' which guarantees rises in the state pension, and Cameron has added that "It wouldn't actually be affordable".

A few months ago, Cameron was telling us that if he was unable to reach a satisfactory outcome in his renegotiation with other EU members, he would recommend that the UK left the organisation, making no reference to the frightening scenario of which he's now trying to convince us; in fact, he said that the UK would survive and prosper.

The truth is that Cameron and Osborne have as little idea of the future outside the EU as anyone else; in reality, there is no evidence that leaving would have any seriously adverse effect on the UK's finances beyond some initial uncertainty in the financial markets. The scaremongering claims are just thoughts plucked out of the air to frighten voters; today it seems that their targets are mainly older people and pensioners. It is cynical and disingenuous, and calls for a very large dollop of scepticism. Indeed, it calls for total rejection of these lying hounds.

VOTE LEAVE !

EU REFERENDUM : A BRAVE NEW WORLD AWAITS.

It seems that we have a choice.

According to those who want us to remain in the European Union, a vote to leave will mean the end of the world as we know it while, according to those who want us to leave the Union, a vote to remain will result in major opportunities in the rest of the world which is, after all, rather larger than Europe.

The 'In' campaign has concentrated almost exclusively on negativity, telling voters of the supposed frightening consequences of opting to leave; there has been little, if any, mention of any real benefits of staying in beyond references to the 'single market', workers' rights and rather nebulous comments about security and safety.

In contrast, the 'Out' campaign has been largely positive, talking of the benefits of leaving. It has not dwelt on vague speculation about what 'could' be, and has not indulged in personal attacks on its opponents. It has not used its international muscle, of which it has little, to recruit hordes of 'fellow travellers' in its support; what it has done is to offer a vision of a Britain freed from the shackles of a moribund overlord.

The contrasting campaigns have seen fear set against opportunity, fear set against confidence, fear set against belief, indeed, fear set against everything. The 'In' campaign has had nothing to offer but fear, while the 'Out' campaign has offered the prospect of a brave new world.

I opt for the Brave New World - VOTE LEAVE !

EU REFERENDUM : OECD HIGHLIGHTS REASONS TO LEAVE.

Europhile David Cameron thinks that the UK would be better off remaining inside the European Union, indeed, he has told us that leaving would be catastrophic in all sorts of ways. Quite probably, there would be World War 3, followed by an invasion by the Daleks and Galactic meltdown.

Sadly for Dave, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, actually one of his Europhile chums, does not see the EU in quite the rosy light that he does. Today it's issued a report which states that investment in the Eurozone remains far below the levels seen before the financial crisis of 2008, this being partly due to continuing problems in the banking sector. The OECD says that bad debts are making European banks unwilling to lend, that many issues arising from the crisis are unresolved and, worst of all, that many 'major new problems' have emerged.

Do we really want to follow the advice of Cameron and his ilk who want us to tie ourselves to this rotting corpse called the European Union, or do we want to free ourselves ? Do we want to risk being dragged further into the Eurozone's continuing turmoil ? Despite what has been said by Cameron, Osborne and others, the UK actually has contributed to various bail-out issues over the years and will be required to do so in  the future so long as we remain within the Union.

The simple fact is that the European Union is a mess and will remain so; the Eurozone has proved to be an utter catastrophe for many of its members. The UK is out of the second, for now, and needs to be out of the first as soon as possible. VOTE LEAVE.

EU REFERENDUM : NOTHING BUT LIES, CONTRADICTION AND HYPOCRISY.

As the EU Referendum campaign rumbles on, it is increasingly dominated by vitriolic personal attacks and scaremongering of every sort.

Last night, on independent television, a host of 'Remainers', launched personal attacks on Boris Johnson rather than really say much of substance about why we should vote to stay in the Union. Today, a bunch of senior Labour party figures is telling us that a vote to leave will lead to an emergency budget, tax rises, spending cuts, job losses and, quite probably, famine, floods, plagues of locusts and anything else they can conjure up. What a farce !

Meanwhile, another Labour figure, John Mann, and MP who made the news recently for berating Ken Livingstone very much in public, has said theta we should, indeed, vote to leave, and that a "peoples' revolution is under way". If only that were true as it is surely time that voters gave the 2-fingered salute to all of the doom-mongers, liars and self serving elitists who want everything to stay just as it is, with themselves on the top of the pile and the rest of us firmly under control.

It also occurs to me that it's only a few days ago that David Cameron said that "of course" the UK would survive and do well outside of the EU, adding, however, that he thought it would do better inside. Putting the latter sentiment aside for a moment, if his initial remark is true and if his previously expressed position of being fully prepared to campaign to take the UK out of the Union in the absence of an acceptable 'renegotiation' was also a true one, then how can it now be claimed that leaving would be as utterly catastrophic as some are now saying ?

If leaving the EU would lead to national disaster, clearly the Prime Minister should never have indicate that leading the country out of it was an option. If the country can survive quite well out of the EU, why are so many on the 'Remain' side continuing to say that leaving would be so dreadful ? Quite clearly, we have a mixture of lies, contradiction and hypocrisy emanating from the 'Remain' campaign and that, alone, should be enough to convince voters.

VOTE LEAVE.

EU REFERENDUM : WAR IN IRELAND IF WE LEAVE ?

The leaders of the 'Remain' campaign are clearly getting desperate.

Today former Prime Minister John Major was rolled out for the second time this week, along with another former PM, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. The two former adversaries appeared together to spread more stories to frighten the children; this time it was to tell us all that leaving the European Union would lead to Scotland having another vote on its own independence, and would threaten the 'stability' of Northern Ireland. This last point was subsequently firmly refuted by the Government's own Secretary of State for the province, Teresa Villiers, who stated that the words of the 2 former Prime Ministers were "highly irresponsible". Even without Villiers intervention, the statements of Major and Blair are no more than the utterly unsubstantiated views of 2 dedicated Europhiles, and worthy of little, if any consideration.


While Tony Blair's willingness to prostitute himself in this way is typical of the man, that John Major has now become embroiled in this kind of unsavoury and highly disingenuous misinformation says much for a man of whom I previously had a high regard. That the Government led by David Cameron is prepared to put its name to, and support behind, this kind of outrageous scaremongering shows that Cameron himself is a man who is entirely unsuitable for his role as prime Minister and whom no one should ever trust. It also demonstrates just how desperate the 'Remain' campaigners are becoming.


To my mind, this disgraceful episode tells us one important thing - Cameron and his allies cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything. They will lie and cheat, fabricate 'evidence' and say anything at all that they think will win the referendum for their preferred option of remaining within the appalling, corrupt organisation known as the European Union.

Show these lying scumbags that we will not be conned. VOTE LEAVE.

EU REFERENDUM : WOLLASTON'S MUDDLED THINKING.

Sarah Wollaston, Conservative Member of Parliament for Totnes in Devon, is a fairly independent minded representative. As such, she has a history of rebelling against her party's leaders on occasion and joined the campaign to leave the European Union from its outset. However, she has now changed her mind and decided that the UK should remain within the Union.

Frankly, her reasoning is pretty odd. It seems that her only real concern is the NHS and the claims being made about future funding possibilities by the 'Leave' campaign. She objects to suggestion that chunks of money which currently find their way to the coffers of Brussels could, instead, be directed to the NHS; she says that such claims are dishonest and that she could not "set foot on a battle bus that has at the heart of its campaign a figure that I know to be untrue". She also now says that there would be a 'Brexit penalty' on the NHS because leaving the EU would hit Britain's economy, something which one has to presume that she didn't previously believe.

Wollaston is a doctor and obviously has a continuation of the NHS in its current decrepit form as a priority in her life. However, one has to wonder why she ever joined the 'Leave' campaign if this single issue is so important to her that it over-rides all else, and why she has suddenly 'discovered' the supposed damage which Brexit might cause to our economy. As an MP, shouldn't she have made sure that she knew enough about a broad range of issues before deciding which side to back ? There is far more to this issue than whether or not the NHS would receive extra funding.

To me, this sudden defection smacks of something more. Has Wollaston been 'got at' by her political bosses ? Has she been promised some form of reward for changing sides, particularly for making such a hot topic as the NHS her rationale ? Maybe she has and maybe she hasn't; either way, her words and action show that her thinking on this vital issue has been muddled and blinkered and certainly doesn't change my mind. VOTE LEAVE !

EU REFERENDUM : BORIS BEATS MAJOR BY A KNOCK OUT.

I have always thought that former Prime Minister John Major was one of the 'good guys', a decent man who has been much maligned for no good reason. Until yesterday, that is.

Major appeared on the Andrew Marr programme on BBC 1 on Sunday morning as a spokesman for the 'Remain' campaign in order, presumably, to add gravitas to their appeal to voters. In the event, all that he did was to repeat the now very tired scaremongering which is all that the 'Remain' side seems to have in its locker, plus threw a substantial amount of abuse at the leaders of the 'Leave' campaign, most notably Boris Johnson. In typical style, Major's abuse was voiced in polite terms but was simply mud-throwing and not at all worthy of the man.

Major called the 'Leave' campaign dishonest and squalid; he accused them of using inaccurate and misleading figures, both on the economy and immigration, giving his own somewhat dubious and nebulous reasons why leaving the EU would harm us and why current economic and migratory issues would just fade away if we stayed in.  He even set up a few 'Aunt Sallys', asking who the 'Leave' side would send back in order to meet their immigration targets, and suggested doctors and footballers might be affected - seriously ? He ended up by saying that David Cameron has reinstated 'subsidiarity', whatever that actually means, and that talk of the EU being run by an unelected elite was 'hogwash'. What he didn't do was give any real idea as to the future of the UK inside an ever expanding and more centrist, protectionist European Union, other than to tell viewers that we were effectively excluded from having to get involved in the difficulties that other member countries have, which really is hogwash.

It later became clear that he had been sent along at the behest of the Prime Minister and had not been particularly keen on the idea, even less so when he discovered that Boris Johnson was also going to appear on the programme and, worse still, was scheduled to appear after Major thus giving him an advantage in the war of words.  

Boris duly made his appearance but refused to be drawn into any tit-for-tat mud slinging. Instead, gave viewers pretty straight answers to Marr's straight questions. He pointed out, quite rightly, that there are parts of our nations economic life over which we no longer have control. He cited the £350m which is paid over to Brussels every week; yes, some of this comes back but not for us to spend freely, instead, we have to spend it on things that EU bureaucrats determine. If we leave the Union, this money, around £10.6bn, would be available for investment in the NHS, for tax cuts or whatever else WE please.

Johnson referred to our lack of control over immigration and asked how the 'Remain' side could possibly think that migration for the EU could ever be controlled if we stayed in. He wondered what their vision of the future was, mentioning housing, the green belt, schools and other public services, in the event of continued uncontrolled immigration.

Johnson went on to confirm that the UK would not be in the 'single market' if we leave, but pointed out that many countries, he said 27, already had better trade with the EU than did the UK. He claimed that regulation costs British business some £600m per week, and said that Europe is the slowest growing continent on the planet, with the exception of Antarctica. Lord Rose, one of the leaders of the 'Remain' campaign has even said that claims of an economic shock if we leave are unfounded and that wages would rise, while many of those now prophesying disaster if we leave are the same 'experts' who told us that not joining the ERM and then the Euro would bring about catastrophe; they were wrong then and they are wrong now. Even David Cameron was on record as saying that, while people would scaremonger about the UK's prospects if we left the Union, we could in fact prosper outside the EU and we would be able to agree free trade deals; this he had said on the very same Andrew Marr show during his renegotiation phase.

Johnson was clear Cameron has failed to deliver on his manifesto pledges about reducing immigration and claimed that this was corrosive of public trust. He said that Cameron claimed to have gained reforms from his EU colleagues but had actually gained nothing. The Eurozone remains in chaos with huge unemployment in many countries, largely because of the way in which the centralised EU bureaucracy sees no differences across the whole Union and tries to impose the same rules and regulations on all. This has led to sever financial and migratory problems.

Johnson ended by reminding viewers that the EU is fundamentally antidemocratic and that its widening has led to increasing federalisation. 60% of our laws are affected by Brussels and we cannot control many of our own policies. While Turkey may not join the Union in the foreseeable future, it increased is Government and EU policy that it should join, and there will be cooperation over the years; Johnson sees no problem in Turkey joining, as long as the UK leaves first. Challenged on his apparent change of mind on the question of the UK's membership of the EU, Johnson made it clear that his view has changed because the EU has changed out of all recognition from what we joined in 1973.

In the end, it seemed to me that while John Major adopted the same scaremongering approach to which the 'Remain' campaign seems wedded, and added some personal invective and abuse for good measure, Boris Johnson was far more positive, voicing confidence in the UK's ability to grow once freed from the shackles of the EU. Major's argument was all about fear, there was no vision; in fact the 'Remain' campaign seems to have no vision of a future inside the EU, only their fears of a future outside it.

Do we really want to be governed by fear ? I don't. VOTE LEAVE.

GIOVANNI RUSSO AND THE BLACK LION AT ST ALBANS.

In 1997 I lost my father and brother within a few weeks of each other - dad died in August and Phil in November. My poor mum was beside herself with grief and I'm sure never really recovered. I did my best to try to support her through what was the most terrible time of her life, even though she'd also had to live through the London Blitz but, in an unusual way, I had help from an unexpected source.

We started going to a local pub / restaurant which mum and dad had frequented but never done more than had an occasional drink. Whenever I visited, which was every 2 or 3 weeks for several days, we would go for a drink and then we started going for a meal on a Friday or Saturday evening. This was at the 'Black Lion' in St Albans, an ancient inn which then was a well known local pub, hotel and eating house. The restaurant was run on a leased basis by Giovanni Russo and was a delight; the food was terrific, Giovanni was always open to suggestions about his offerings, the staff were marvellous and, most importantly, mum was treated like royalty.

We had so many wonderful evenings there, which was exactly what mum needed. Whatever we wanted was never any trouble, there was live music and, in a tiny space, even occasional 'dancing in the aisles'. Giovanni, whom most called John, was a wonderful, loud Italian who ran a superb restaurant but, most importantly, cared for his customers.

Giovanni had a fractious relationship with the owners of the pub and eventually left around 2005, starting up another small restaurant not far away; it wasn't the same, though, and never could be. Sadly the venture didn't last very long as Giovanni was diagnosed with terminal cancer and died not too long after mum, who left me in 2008.

The point of this story is really to say my thanks to Giovanni, even though he's no longer around. He treated my mum as if she was the Queen, as did his staff; I remember Tony and Marco well, and the shy chef whose name escapes me but who cooked our meals to perfection. There were the musicians who played the keyboard, usually Benny but sometimes another whose name is also now lost to me, both of whom were so friendly and so kind.

If I could have my life over again, I would demand that those years at the 'Black Lion' be repeated. They were wonderful and Giovanni's kindness and attentiveness to my mum will be in my thoughts until my dying day. He was one of the unsung heroes of my life.

EU REFERENDUM : DARLING WAFFLES, MINFORD WINS.

It's beginning to look as though the 'Remain' campaigners are getting a little concerned and there's an increasing note of panic in their utterances.

This morning, on the 'Today' programme on Radio 4 there was a planned debate between former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, and renowned free market economist, Patrick Minford. To call this a debate is, perhaps, a little excessive as Darling rattled on and on and on, spouting every ounce of negativity that he could muster, and poor Minford was left with very little time to respond; Nick Robinson, who attempted to manage the discussion, was simply drowned out by Darling's determination to dominate proceedings and reluctance to allow his opponent to be heard.

In truth, all that Darling did was to show frustration, a degree of panic and an utter lack of confidence in the British economy and British workers. He repeated the now familiar mantra that the UK would have a torrid time if it dared to leave the European Union, and largely ignored the few contrary thoughts which Minford was able to voice. What Minford did manage to say made significantly more sense and showed far greater confidence in Britain and the British worker, as well as being far more forward looking, than anything that issued forth from Gordon Brown's former man at the Treasury.

Darling wants the UK to stay within the EU because it's seen as being safe; Minford wants us to leave because that is where the real opportunities are, in the rest of the world. With opportunity may come some risks but there are also risks of not taking opportunities when they arise. Do we want the UK to be an inward-looking nation, falling behind the rest of the world along with the other members of the EU, or do we want it to embrace the whole world, seizing opportunities to forge alliances wherever we please, unencumbered by EU in-fighting, sloth, bureaucracy, red tape, fraud and corruption ?

I know which I prefer. VOTE LEAVE.

EU REFERENDUM : CUT IMMIGRATION & BE REBORN !

At long last, voters have been given a glimpse of a real future by one of the referendum campaigns. On the vexed subject of immigration, the 'Leave' campaign has proposed serious changes to our immigration system in the event of voters choosing separate the UK's from the EU.

At present, EU citizens are entitled to travel anywhere within the Union without limit; they can look for work wherever they like and claim benefits in whichever country they decide to reside. The UK Government has no right to restrict such migrants in any way and hundreds of thousands have arrived in the country in recent years, arguably depressing wages and adding significantly to the pressures on overstretched public services.

Immigrants from non-EU countries are treated very differently, being required to prove that they would bring much needed skills or other benefits to the UK economy through a 'points based system'. Leading names in the 'Leave' campaign are now saying that if the UK votes to leave the EU, the same system could be applied to all migrants, something which would instantly reduce the currently uncontrolled immigration into this country.

Inevitably, representatives of the 'Remain' campaign don't like this idea and say that the proposal would wreck the UK economy and could 'drive up' immigration; what they base this assessment on isn't stated, but it looks like nonsense to me. How could introducing proper immigration controls increase immigration ? Why would a universal 'points based system' wreck our economy ? To my mind, such a change would ensure that the UK is able to compete for the brightest and best from the whole world and is not ham-strung by its enforced adherence to EU rules.

Separately, Frances O'Grady, General Secretary of the TUC, has been heard this morning claiming that leaving the EU would cost UK workers something like £40 per week in lost wages; she bases this wholly unsubstantiated claim on the usual nebulous stuff about lots of economists an their forecasts, which the sane amongst us know is rubbish. Nonetheless, O'Grady rabbited on about the plight of workers in the event of a 'Brexit', quite heedless of the probable benefits to be enjoyed if hordes of low paid eastern European migrants were to be removed from the equation. She said nothing about the current economic turmoil in Greece, Spain, France, Belgium and other EU countries; why ?

The TUC has set out its stall long ago and is hell bent on remaining within the EU, basing their campaign on the same tired and highly questionable economic forecasts as other 'Remainers'. Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Gisela Stewart and Pritti Patel and the 'Leave' campaign actually have a vision of a brighter future. Yesterday, the 'Leave' campaign drew attention to the fact that, as a member of the EU, we cannot even decide what to tax, highlighting our inability to remove the egregious VAT applied to energy bills because of EU rules; leaving would free us from such restrictive practices.

The 'Leave' campaign is confident and forward looking, not negative and stuck in the past. It sees a brighter future for the UK, while the 'Remain' campaign sees only more of the same, a continuation of what they see as the safe and comfortable world of the European womb.

We must see the light and vote for rebirth. VOTE LEAVE.